Babwa Wawa:KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

Oh, by the way, Fedex is a "Gun-Free" workplace, so for those individuals pointing out that "no good guy with a gun stopped this", by definition a good guy would have obeyed the rules and as such would have been unable to stop the shooter / defend his fellow workers. Also the "Guns Everywhere" law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2014, but don't let that deter the derp.

dittybopper:Babwa Wawa: KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

The Big Business/Wealthy owned "news" media are going to use these shoot 'em up events as an excuse to take guns away from the other 98% of 'muricans. just like 9/11 was used to take away much of our Freedoms these days.....

that way, these same people will own all your asses even more. you won't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. and if you threaten that We The People will take our government back, they'll say 'with what, a slingshot?'

Maybe i'll get lucky one day and 'muricans will kill themselves off and other nations can use this extinct Nation as a warning about unchecked greed and selfishness. a warning about what happens when big business and the wealthy take over The People's government for their own selfish greedy interests.

Let's see...........export jobs overseas for the past 30 years,etc, destroying the middle class and causing huge unemployment and disenfranchising the voter so that he no longer has any input into what used to be his government which is owned by the wealthy and big business = increase in gun and other violence.

I'm an Egyptian!:Here's what I don't get. A frequent refrain of the supporters of the Second Amendment is the whole "an armed society is a polite society" statement, yet they start on about the shootings in Chicago. What are they shooting with? Bananas? Passion fruit? Pointed sticks? One would assume they were using firearms. And I think we can also assume that the shootings arent' just one or two shooters. Ergo, many people are armed. I would argue this invalidates that whole argument. Or is that they are more polite as they are shooting? Does it go along the lines of "I'm dreadfully sorry, but I'm now need to shoot you." Can someone explain this to me? What about Somalia? Damn near everyone is armed over there. How about Afghanistan? Or Iraq? They had a helluva lot of arms over there. Hell, there was a huge market in the middle of Sadr City where you could get any weapon you desire? Are those areas more polite?

That refrain is usually reserved for law abiding gun owners. The vast majority of the inner city shootings are people who are acting in commission of a crime, or are prohibited from possessing firearms altogether. There are millions of law abiding gun owners who will not once in their lifetimes shoot another person.

No good guy with a gun EVER stops the shooting spree. It wasn't a comment on the "gun free" workplace law. Get a grip.

Sorry, but you are incorrect: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit

I know it's buzzfeed but with all the anti-gun derp you've been spouting throughout the thread, it probably won't matter. All are verifiable.

I have been corrected about this point multiple times. And I stand corrected. I didn't personally know of any situation where that happened and it has nothing to do with Mother Jones.

And I don't spout "anti-gun derp." I point out people that are spouting pro-gun derp. I think there is middle ground between "gun grabbing" and Mad Max society, unlike many black/white thinkers.

When you make a demonstrably false blanket statement that on its face value seems obviously untrue and you could easily verify the veracity of that statement yourself BEFORE screaming that it is true and yet you do not, most sensible people refer to that as derp.

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

Wow dude. That's some ignorant sh*t right there. Two mass shootings. In Texas. On an army base. Mass shooting on a Navy base.

On a side note, I'm not sure where or when the gun control debate went off the f*cking rails. There used to be general agreement on both sides that there was a right to own weapons. At some point over the last 20 years it's morphed into something about the ability to arm yourself with anything, anywhere, without any checks on the right whatsoever.

HotWingConspiracy:MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

So you advocate for mental health screenings prior to being allowed to own firearms, right?

Only if it also goes for driving licenses, voting, being parents, and being politicians. Then I have no issues. But since almost everyone has some type of mental issue, at what level do you start to restrict?

MFK:Bit'O'Gristle:/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

yeah... like military bases.

Look dude, no matter how much you want it, we're not going to arm this society to the teeth just because you people have these weird gun fantasies.

Military bases are actually gun free zones- they have been for a good 20 years or so. That makes them 'soft targets.' If the president cared about our troops, he'd rescind that little directive.

AspectRatio:Therefore guns are harmless and nothing could have been done or should have been done to keep the shooter from having one. And I'm sure the injuries were just bruises, maybe just a scratch or a broken fingernail, nothing permanent or disabling. And there definitely won't be any long-term trauma for any of those involved, or their families, or the community. I'd say "meh" just about sums it up, another day in gun-land.

We've had these arguments. We've re-had these arguments. No matter how much pro-gun people scream from the rooftops that we want to help and propose serious alternatives, it gets drowned out by lobbying, and by people like you who don't ever think it's enough.

So, yeah, Meh. I'm tired of having these arguments, and while i'm sorry for the victims, I'm also resigned to the fact that my options are to fight tooth and nail to maintain what we have because no laws will ever come about that listens to our side, or give in and kiss our 2A rights good bye.

People die, and people kill each other. They have been doing that since the dawn of time. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that it happens, because the tools change, the evil stays the same, and as of yet no one has found a way to stop making people want to kill each other.

Psylence:Cymbal: Bit'O'Gristle: I have said this before, and though some don't agree i don't care. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Here goes.

<snip>

Gun buyback programs invalidate your entire post. You have anything else to share with the class?

Gun buybacks are a great way for the ...

I wish the "authorities" would have a gun buyback in my area. I have a bunch of old junk I have picked up at auctions over the years (hey, sometimes you find a gem) that I wouldn't mind selling off. Might even allow me to finance that SBR I've been looking at.

Bit'O'Gristle:I have said this before, and though some don't agree i don't care. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Here goes.

The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse. She now has the option to choose not to be a victim, but...able to defend herself. At least now she has a chance to live, instead of being gunned down like a dog shivering under a table. And isn't it a valid right to be able to defend ourselves? Is there a more natural law that applies to us more? If a guy comes up and slugs you, you are going to use your fists and give him what he just gave you. You're not going to stand there and let him punch you over and over. Why should someone with a gun be any different? In fact, it should be MORE applicable because this person could kill you, not just give you a black eye. The right to defend ourselves is not only a law, its a natural mental stand that one takes in the face of danger.

Hate all you want, but the guns are out there, bought legally or not. The choice to have the ability to defend yourself is totally up to you. If you choose to not have a gun, i totally respect your choice, if you choose to have the ability to defend your life, or other lives, i respect that as well.

So do you choose to defend your life, or your spawn's life by choosing a method which explicitly damages or ends life, innocent or guilty? Do you believe only your lives are of any value, not anyone else's? Just asking, I don't have any problem with crazy straight people shooting each other and lowering the population count.

Bit'O'Gristle:dittybopper: Babwa Wawa: KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

yeah... like military bases.

Look dude, no matter how much you want it, we're not going to arm this society to the teeth just because you people have these weird gun fantasies.

Muta:Since someone always says, "Doesn't Chicago/DC/Maryland have some of thestrictest gun laws in the country" when there is a shooting in Chicago, DC or Maryland, I guess it isrelevant to ask...

Doesn't Georgia have some of the most permissive gun laws in the country?

I think you just proved the point that gun laws, restrictive or not, are ineffective in preventing this kind of thing. That is the whole argument from pro-second amendment folks. Laws only impact those willing to follow them. I'd argue that people who commit mass shootings aren't thinking about gun laws when they act.

d23:fireclown: someradicaldude: Oh, by the way, Fedex is a "Gun-Free" workplace, so for those individuals pointing out that "no good guy with a gun stopped this", by definition a good guy would have obeyed the rules and as such would have been unable to stop the shooter / defend his fellow workers. Also the "Guns Everywhere" law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2014, but don't let that deter the derp.

This is actually a very good point.

And it is also a good point that no one can point to a single instance where a "good guy" pulled a gun and stopped a mass shooting.

Bit'O'Gristle:gnosis301: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how people yap about the south while ignoring all the shootings in the utopia known as Chicago.

Get off that cross you nailed yourself to.

/Well if we could figure out how to get gang members to stop spraying rounds into innocent victims while throwing moranic gang signs we would have that problem licked now wouldn't we? You can't fix stupid, and darwin generally assures us that he will continue to weed out genetically flawed citizens.

Here's what I don't get. A frequent refrain of the supporters of the Second Amendment is the whole "an armed society is a polite society" statement, yet they start on about the shootings in Chicago. What are they shooting with? Bananas? Passion fruit? Pointed sticks? One would assume they were using firearms. And I think we can also assume that the shootings arent' just one or two shooters. Ergo, many people are armed. I would argue this invalidates that whole argument. Or is that they are more polite as they are shooting? Does it go along the lines of "I'm dreadfully sorry, but I'm now need to shoot you." Can someone explain this to me? What about Somalia? Damn near everyone is armed over there. How about Afghanistan? Or Iraq? They had a helluva lot of arms over there. Hell, there was a huge market in the middle of Sadr City where you could get any weapon you desire? Are those areas more polite?

HotWingConspiracy:Bit'O'Gristle: dittybopper: Babwa Wawa: KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

gnosis301:jehovahs witness protection: Funny how people yap about the south while ignoring all the shootings in the utopia known as Chicago.

Get off that cross you nailed yourself to.

/Well if we could figure out how to get gang members to stop spraying rounds into innocent victims while throwing moranic gang signs we would have that problem licked now wouldn't we? You can't fix stupid, and darwin generally assures us that he will continue to weed out genetically flawed citizens.

Look, it's really quite simple. Just get rid of all the gun laws and restrictions. Good, law abiding citizens will never use their guns to commit an act of violence except in extreme cases of self defense, and criminals or the mentally unstable will not obey the laws in the first place.

The fact that many criminals or mentally unstable people APPEAR to be good, law abiding citizens until the moment they use guns to commit violence is a non starter, since clearly they are NOT good, law abiding citizens. See?